Magdoulen A. Sawires v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union County 9/30/2024, (#359-24)

359-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Magdoulen A. Sawires,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
On June 4, 2024, petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Elizabeth Board of Education
(Board) denying the renewal of her employment contract for the 2022-2023 school year. Petitioner had
been employed as a non-tenured teacher by the Board for six months, from January 3, 2022 to
June 30, 2022. 	The Board filed a motion to dismiss for failure to timely file the petition pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: it is undisputed that petitioner received a notice of non-renewal on or
about May 13, 2022; 	more than two years later, the petitioner filed the within appeal seeking the
reversal of the Board’s decision not to renew her contract, as well as compensation and reinstatement
to employment; in her opposition to the Board’s motion to dismiss, petitioner conceded that she did not
appeal the Board’s non-renewal action but instead filed an action in Superior Court which was
dismissed; only after her appeal of that dismissal was denied did petitioner file this appeal; pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) and existing caselaw, the 90-day rule began to run when petitioner received notice of
her non-renewal on or about May 13, 2022; and neither the filing of her complaint with the Superior
Court nor her appeal with the Appellate Division tolls the ninety-day timeline imposed by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.3(i). Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion to dismiss the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion and
adopted the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law as the final decision in this matter. In so
doing, the Commissioner determined that there was no compelling constitutional reason in this case to
warrant the relaxation of the 90-day rule. The Board’s motion was granted, and the petition was
dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of
the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

359-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08315-24
Agency Dkt. No. 176-6/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Magdoulen A. Sawires,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and respondent’s reply thereto,
have been reviewed and considered.
The threshold procedural issue in this case is whether the petition should be dismissed
pursuant to the 90-day rule, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J.
572, 582 (1993). 	Petitioner challenges respondent’s decision not to renew her employment
contract for the 2022-2023 school year. She received a notice of nonrenewal from respondent
on May 13, 2022, and last worked for respondent as a nontenured teacher in late June 2022. She
filed her petition of appeal on June 4, 2024, more than two years after having received the notice
of nonrenewal.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) and
existing case law, her petition was untimely filed because the time to appeal began to run when

2
petitioner received notice of the nonrenewal on May 13, 2022. The ALJ further concluded that
neither the filing of a lawsuit in the Superior Court nor an appeal to the Appellate Division tolls
the 90-day time period to file a petition. The ALJ also concluded that even assuming petitioner
did not fully understand that she was no longer employed by respondent until September 2022
(although this new contention is contradicted by the allegations contained in her petition) and
that was the date from which the filing period began, the petition she filed in June 2024 is
nonetheless untimely.
In her exceptions, petitioner does not challenge the ALJ’s factual findings. Rather, she
reiterates the arguments she made before the ALJ and appears to assert that because she filed
her petition within sixty days of having received an Appellate Division decision directing her to
do so,1 the merits of her case should be considered. 	However, she does not cite any legal
authority to support her position.
In its reply, respondent asserts that petitioner’s exceptions are procedurally defective as
they do not specify what facts or legal conclusions that petitioner takes exception to. Respondent
claims that petitioner’s exceptions merely reiterate the arguments that were already considered
by the ALJ.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the Initial Decision as the final decision in this
matter. 	The Commissioner concurs with the ALJ’s factual findings and conclusion that the
petition was untimely filed. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) mandates that petitions shall be filed “no later
1 While the Appellate Division’s decision indicated that petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies through the Department of Education, it did not direct petitioner to file a petition with the
Commissioner or suggest in any way that such a petition would be timely. Sawires v. Elizabeth Bd. of
Educ., 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1006 (App. Div. June 3, 2024).

3
than the 90 th day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final . . . action by the district board
of education.” 	The 90-day limitation period “represents a fair and reasonably-necessary
requirement for the proper and efficient resolution of disputes under the school laws.” Kaprow,
131 N.J. at 582. 	It “provides a measure of repose” and “gives school districts the security of
knowing that administrative decisions regarding the operation of the school cannot be
challenged after ninety days.” Ibid.
Here, the ALJ correctly concluded that the 90-day limitation period began when petitioner
received the May 13, 2022, nonrenewal letter. Salazar-Linden v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Holmdel,
Monmouth Cnty., Commissioner Decision No. 99-08 at 5-6 (March 3, 2008), aff’d, 2009 N.J. Super.
Unpub. LEXIS 2713 * (App. Div. Oct. 28, 2009); Jordan v. Bd. of Educ. of N. Hunterdon-Voorhees
Reg’l High Sch. Dist., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11825-14, Initial Decision at 8-9 (March 2, 2015), adopted,
Commissioner Decision No. 162-15 (May 20, 2015), aff’d, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1865 *
(App. Div. July 21, 2017). 	It is undisputed that petitioner received the nonrenewal letter on
May 13, 2022. 	Therefore, she had a meaningful opportunity to file her petition within the
mandatory 90-day timeframe. 	The filing deadline is not subject to change based upon a
petitioner’s legal strategy or a decision to pursue lawsuits in a different forum; that would defeat
the measure of repose to which school districts are entitled. See, generally, Nissman v. Bd. of
Educ. of Twp. of Long Beach Island, Ocean Cnty., 272 N.J. Super. 373, 382 (App. Div. 1994)
(affirming State Board decision to dismiss petition as time barred and explaining that while
petitioner may have opted not to file a petition sooner for tactical reasons, the board “was
entitled to know within 90 days of its action whether its [decision] was going to be challenged”).

4
“While the Commissioner has the discretion to relax the [90-day] rule . . . this
extraordinary relief has been reserved only for those situations where a substantial constitutional
issue is presented or where a matter of significant public interest is involved, beyond that of
concern only to the parties.” Smith v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Paterson, OAL Dkt. No.
EDU 06076-14, Initial Decision at 6 (Nov. 6, 2014), adopted, Commissioner Decision No. 491-14
(Dec. 18, 2014). Here, petitioner’s claims are specific to her personal employment relationship
with respondent. 	Thus, the Commissioner holds that a relaxation of the ninety-day rule is
unwarranted in this case.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of appeal is
hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 30, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	October 2, 2024
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSING THE PETITION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08315-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 176-6/24
MAGDOULEN A. SAWIRES,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF ELIZABETH, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________
Magdoulen A. Sawires, petitioner, pro se
Brian 	J. 	Kane, 	Esq., 	for 	respondent 	(LaCorte, 	Bundy, 	Varady 	& 	Kinsella,
attorneys)
Record Closed: July 23, 2024 	Decided: August 28, 2024
BEFORE SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Magdoulen Sawires (Petitioner or Sawires) appealed the determination
by respondent Elizabeth Board of Education (Board) denying the renewal of her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08315-24
2
employment contract. The Board moves to dismiss the Petition because it was untimely
filed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal with the Commissioner of Education, and the
Commissioner transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law, where it was
filed as a contested case on June 14, 2024 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13.
An initial prehearing conference was held on July 10, 2024, at which time the Board
requested, and was granted, leave to file a Motion to Dismiss. 	On July 17, 2024, the
Board filed its motion.1 	On July 18, 2024, the petitioner opposed the motion, and the
Board filed a reply to the opposition on or around July 23, 2024. 	On July 23, 2024, the
petitioner submitted a sur-reply which was unauthorized, and not considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon reviewing Sawires’s Petition, and the parties’ submissions, I FIND the
following as FACT:
Sawires was a non-tenured employee of the Board from approximately January 3,
2022 until approximately June 30, 2022.
On May 13, 2022, Sawires received from the Board a Notice of Non-Renewal,
informing her that her employment contract with the Board would not be renewed for the
2022–2023 school year. She last worked for the Board in late June 2022.
Sawires filed this Petition with the Department of Education on June 4, 2024. 	In
her Petition, Sawires suggests that despite receiving the Notice of Non-Renewal, she
1 While the Board technically filed a “Motion for Summary Decision,” I considered this application a Motion
to Dismiss since that is what was discussed at the prehearing conference, and because I only considered
the pleadings in deciding this Motion.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08315-24
3
sought to resign from the position but was told by at least one District representative not
to resign, to file for unemployment, and that if the District did not find an alternative
placement for her for the following school year, she would be terminated due to a
reduction in force. 	She also seems to allege in her Petition that the District improperly
failed to have her sign any document relating to her separation from the District in late
June 2022. All the claims raised in the Petition relate directly to the Board’s decision not
to renew Sawires’ employment contract for the 2022-2023 school year.
The Petition seeks: the reversal of the Board’s decision not to renew her contract;
compensation; and reinstatement of her work for “wrongful discharge due to inadequate
training and failure to communicate expectations.” 	Sawires asserts in the Petition that
the District violated “labor and education laws by failing to provide a rationale for her
discharge.”
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The Board filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the Petition because Sawires
filed this Petition well beyond the ninety-day limitation period provided by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.3(i). The Board asserts that Sawires received a notice of non-renewal on May 13, 2022,
as she states in her Petition, and that since she failed to file this appeal within ninety days
of her receipt of the Board’s notice, her Petition must be dismissed.
In her opposition to the Board’s motion, Sawires asserts that she did not know that
she “got discharged” until September 2022, although she also asserts that she was
informed by the school’s vice principal in June 2022 that she was being laid off. She also
asserts that she was wrongfully terminated on June 26, 2022, and that the Board
wrongfully denied her mentorship and a hearing relating to the non-renewal. 	In her
opposition to the motion, Sawires concedes that she did not appeal the Board’s action in
2022, but that in 2023 she filed an action in Superior Court, which was dismissed. She
appealed the dismissal, and, in early June 2024, the Appellate Division denied her appeal.
Under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), a “petitioner shall file a petition no later than the 90th
day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling or other action by the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08315-24
4
district board of education, individual party, or agency, which is the subject of the
requested contested case hearing.” 	The ninety-day period for filing a petition is to be
strictly construed and those claims that are not filed in a timely manner are precluded
from review. 	Raymond v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of River Edge, 94 N.J.A.R. 2d
(EDU) 203, aff’d, 94 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDU) 431.
Here, it is undisputed that Sawires received a notice of non-renewal on or about
May 13, 2022. 	This is reflected in the Petition. 	Although her Petition and opposition to
the Board’s motion suggests that Sawires may have been confused whether she was
non-renewed, laid-off or terminated, and while she asserts that she was wrongfully
terminated or laid-off without having had the benefit of mentorship support or a formal
hearing at the District, it is clear and undisputed that she was made aware in May 2022
that she would no longer be employed by the Board, and that the last time she worked
for the Board was in late June 2022. I CONCLUDE that, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i)
and existing caselaw, the ninety-day rule began to run when Sawires received notice of
the non-renewal on or about May 13, 2022. Neither the filing of Sawires’s complaint with
the Superior Court of New Jersey nor her appeal with the Appellate Division tolls the
ninety-day timeline imposed by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). Sawires filed her Petition about two
years after she received notice of non-renewal, well beyond the ninety-day limitation
period.
Moreover, while Sawires’s opposition to the motion seems to also, confusingly,
assert that she did not become aware that she was “discharged” by the Board until
September 2022 (an assertion that is inconsistent with her Petition), any potential claim
that she could have asserted concerning Board action that she became aware of in
September 2022, would also be time-barred pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:1.3-1.3(i).
Consequently, I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s claims, as set forth in her Petition,
are time-barred pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), and that the Petition should be
dismissed in its entirety.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08315-24
5
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and
that the Petition of Appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed 	to 	the 	parties, 	any 	party 	may 	file 	written 	exceptions 	with 	the 	ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
August 28, 2024
DATE 	SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
jb